Take a few photos. See the sights. Pass 'em on.
larrytusaz: I've never given a rip what the masses do as far as camera choice, because I'm smarter than they are with regards to this stuff & while I'm no professional I want photographs that look at least decent.
I would NEVER use a camera phone for anything other than, say, taking a photo of my leaky pipe so the hardware store knows what I need as a replacement. But for REAL images that matter, I'd rather not even take a photograph at all than to say I used a freaking PHONE to take it. You have got to be kidding me.
Even for snapshots, you've got to be kidding me. People act like toting a small camera is like packing a mule to haul off the camping gear for a week in the Grand Canyon or something. Good grief some people are just so lazy. If a Sony RX100 breaks your back, you might as well just move into a nursing home & start crocheting while watching "Mayberry R.F.D" while snoozing in your rocking chair.
Sound like a film guy. "They will NEVER make a digital that has the resolution of film" yada yada. While I, too, will hold on to my DSLRs until they pry my old dead fingers from the grip, the numbers don't lie. I still find it amazing that NikCanPan, et al won't put WiFi transmitters in DSLRs. The thing is, all these photos STILL end up in dusty bins. In the film days it was old shoe boxes. Today, they are all in the "cloud" or some hard drive and NEVER get viewed more than a few times.
But I don't think it is about size. It is the fact that the populus is carrying their camera with them, disguised as a smart phone. If they did not have it with them at all times, they would not be taking so many photos. And as long as they are happy with them, posted up on Facebook and Instagram, they don't need anything else and won't be buyers. And that, I am afraid, will not change in the glorious future.
Bruce McL: People do not want to take pictures. Getting an image into a camera is not anybody's goal. Even getting images on to a computer is not anybody's goal. The goal is to look at pictures and to share pictures. Cell phones allow people to achieve those goals, most cameras do not.
In the sense of helping people use their pictures, nearly every phone camera is far "better" than nearly every dedicated camera. Adding Android to a dedicated camera would help them catch up to cell phone cameras.
Agree wtih Bruce. People want to share pictures. Just did it seconds ago with a co worker's new baby. Why NOT put WiFi upload capability into EVERY camera??? If you have a DSLR and take a great shot and want to upload it to Facebook etc. why not. Your "followers" are now your photo biz customers. Look at what Chase Jarvis does. If you take a great shot and want to sell yourself to your customers, whoever they are, you want to post it as quickly as possible. We've now got in-camera processing to a degree. Adobe and others are putting apps on phones. Photographers, pro and amateur want to share, NEED to share. Why haven't the mfgs. gotten the message? And now, the iPad gets a better camera? Think iPad owners won't be taking pics with that big, beautiful screen?!?!? Just wait.
Call me when they put this into a Photoshop filter. Other than that, it seems pure gimmickry. Go ahead, try it out on their site. Once you've "refocused" then what? Flip on through to the next one and the next? It would get old in a big hurry and offer nothing that photographers want. Kinda like the gazillion iPhone photo apps that offer the funky effects but not much more. This is even more gimmicky. I don't see Apple falling for this either.
I bought the P7100 over these others, so take this with that bias in mind. What I like is the external controls, the image quality and some other small features such as working with a IR remote control. This is not a given for all cameras and is often not mentioned in reviews. Moreover, the P7100 has infrared receivers for the remote on the front AND the back. It has 3 and 5 shot bracketing for HDR and this is a great combo with an IR remote, sitting on a tripod.Ditto for macro mode, great to have an IR remote and a small tripod. It has an intervalometer, although limited, so can shot only every 30 secs, as a minimum. Seems they could fix this in OS update, to allow say, one ever 1 or 2 seconds. I gotta have a real viewfinder, even if not perfect. But a lovely LCD like the Nikon has is also nice to have. And I think the photos, especially macro are tack sharp for a compact. Oh and an ND filter. Not many have that.
While this is a beautiful photo, what are the reflected lights in her eyes? Since you've posted the original, it almost looks as if there is a soft box light which is causing these large square ish catch lights in her eyes. As large as they are, they are somewhat distracting.
In addition, the skin softening in post processing is quite heavy, to my taste, and also quite visible in the original version. Composition is very good, bokeh in background is very good. Very striking photo and a beautiful young lady.
eNo: I think taking time before each shot is important, but not just to look at what's in or out of the frame. Before you decide what belongs in the frame you need to spend perhaps more than 5 seconds deciding what the "point" of the shot is, what story you are trying to tell, then use that to decide what's important to the shot and what isn't. That in turn will lead you to decide what belongs in the frame.
Great point. Many of us waffle between photo journalists, satisfied with recording the image for "history" (our own or otherwise) or just to "get the shot" and the fine art or "message" photo ("beauty" or "unique"). Yet the why of the shot is important for either and, indeed, for any shot. The 5 for 5 is great advice to get us, as photographers, to think a bit harder about why we shoot something. Just my $.02. Thanks, eNo.